Will anything come of these allegation against the defense?

Personally I do not know how the defense has gotten away with everything they have thus far. Its like they are finding every loop hole possible to jump through. I do not see how the defense can act so irresponsible time and time again and still get away with it. What do you think has become or will become of the recent allegations of falsifying evidence? Is Casey going to be able to appeal based on ineffective counsel? In general what do you believe is going to be the outcome of the defenses behavior if any?

Me, I believe that everything is going to continue just as it has since the begining and that the defence will continue to this behavior and ultimately KC will have grounds for ineffective counsel. I think that if anything was going to come of this falsified document, or the "mysterious hairs" that HL found in the car or anything else it would have happened by now. I just pray that it doesn't come back later on and bite the SA in the butt, and what about the bar, why are they not stepping in and doing anything about all this. I wonder if they just want this to go to trial ASAP and doing anything to the defense would post-pone the trial.

I'm hoping if they did falsify documents, it's being investigated as we type. Unless, those in authority want Baez to use this at trial, so he can be taken out in handcuffs...JMHO She still has CMason who is DP certified, so I don't know if ineffective counsel would fit, at this point..JMHO Although, everyone gets an appeal or a chance at an appeal...JMHO

If it can be proven, I hope, Baez is jailed and stripped of his law license. I also wonder if this is why ALyon flew the coop?? Baez has proven time and time again, he is unethical...DC also claimed he was told by Baez if he came upon Caylee's body, he was not to call police...another allegation that should have been looked into..I want so desperately to see DC's depo...he may hold many clues into the devious mind of Baez and the Anthony's...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

I have my doubts that anything will come of these allegations simply because Joe Jordan's statement was taken almost a year ago where he mentions his theory of falsified documents.

I just figure something would have been filed by now. I could be wrong and I hope I am.

BChand said:

I have my doubts that anything will come of these allegations simply because Joe Jordan's statement was taken almost a year ago where he mentions his theory of falsified documents.

I just figure something would have been filed by now. I could be wrong and I hope I am.

Click to expand...

But Laura Buchanan was only deposed [partially] in early/mid August. That's when the mysterious "SA doesn't have it" paper came to light. Put this and the previous knowledge together and they may have something. At least something to discuss in Part II of her deposition.

Numbers said:

But Laura Buchanan was only deposed [partially] in early/mid August. That's when the mysterious "SA doesn't have it" paper came to light. Put this and the previous knowledge together and they may have something. At least something to discuss in Part II of her deposition.

Click to expand...

Excellent point Numbers. I had forgotten about that.

(With Baez's P.I.'s name on the paper.)

I wouldn't put anything past Baez or his sidekick. I would believe anything that I hear though because I can't stand either of them. I hope they screw up big time sometime before or during the trial. I would love to see that smug smirk wiped right off of Baez face.

I'm also really disappointed in the judge. Him and Baez sidekick act like old buddys and he lets to much slide. He acts like he will come down hard if his rules/deadlines aren't followed but..... Baez pushes and the judge allows it. Why won't anyone cross Baez? Seems to me like there is a lot of rear end smooching when it comes to him!

This is just my opinion and I stand behind it......

I honestly think they just want this trial over with before doing anything about Baez. I mean, can you imagine if Baez was disbarred right now? There's no way that trial would start next year if a new lawyer had to take over the entire case. No, Baez has dragged his feet this far, and thanks to the new law, he's going to be there through the trial. I do think that after Casey is taken care of, then the law is going to clamp down on Baez, the Anthony's, and anyone else who obstructed justice for Caylee.

Right now, the most important thing is getting Caylee's murderer in LWOP or on death row. With the craziness of this case, I imagine that is all they can focus on right now. It doesn't mean they aren't gathering ammunition against other people. It just means that they are storing the ammunition for later use. This case is already a circus because of ringmaster Casey. The last thing LE wants for mom and pop or Baez or anyone else to make it even more a circus. Good Lord, we've ALL had enough of crazies coming out of the woodwork in this case. Let the rest of the nuts stay where they are for right now.

No, let the attention stay where it is so by this time next year Casey is sitting in LWOP or on death row and can't hurt another child. Get the other slimy people later. Focusing on the truly evil one right now is the best course of action. It's not like Baez, the Anthony's or anyone else that obstructed justice is going anywhere or suddenly becoming productive citizens of society anytime soon.

As much as we hate to wait, that's what we're going to have to do here. The waiting is killing me, though, argh!

The defense has been pinning hopes for reasonable doubt on Laura Buchanan. They lost JJ, and she's all they have left.

I don't think that LE can avoid investigating the situation now, because it needs to be resolved before the State can continue their deposition of LB.

If it does turn out the document was falsified, Baez can easily claim he had no knowledge and put the blame on LB or Mort S. In addition, it would pretty much wipe out the defense claim that the body wasn't there and the area wasn't under water.

Of course now, Mason flip-flopped on the issue with his infamous presser where he's trying to say nobody searched there because of the water levels.

Oh, I'm so confused with this!

It is doubtful that LE can pin anything regarding falsified documents on the defense directly. If anything they drop the hammer on LB, and take her out of play as a defense witness or source of any conflicting timeline or doubt.

Both the judge and the SA do not want to go directly head on against JB... yet. They do not want to slow the trial, or open up rulings to be reexamined on the basis of JB's ethical or competency missteps. Or leave a viable avenue for appeal. Once she is convicted they may target certain very specific incidents to bring ethical or criminal charges, but the key is they will wish to do it in such a way that does not tarnish the entirety of the defense as questionable.

Bobbisangel said:

I wouldn't put anything past Baez or his sidekick. I would believe anything that I hear though because I can't stand either of them. I hope they screw up big time sometime before or during the trial. I would love to see that smug smirk wiped right off of Baez face.

I'm also really disappointed in the judge. Him and Baez sidekick act like old buddys and he lets to much slide. He acts like he will come down hard if his rules/deadlines aren't followed but..... Baez pushes and the judge allows it. Why won't anyone cross Baez? Seems to me like there is a lot of rear end smooching when it comes to him!

This is just my opinion and I stand behind it......

Click to expand...

I have to agree with ya here.

Notice his remark at that presser about his doltish smirk? Yeah, something like, you'll-all-get-it-come-trial. Uh huh. Now he's explaining the very thing we ALL can't stand about him and constantly let him know about it. So, he's got to have a cunning come-back-at-ya with something he thinks will cause some anxiety.

The only thing it does for me is makes me wonder what other deceptive and underhanded plan he may have to attempt to circumvent justice in this case.

And, if he goes to court again whining about the Big Bad Media and JP doesn't give him a smackdown......now THAT will give me some anxiety. After all, he says he's only 50/50 going to be prepared for trial YET his face is on the air for about an hour in the AM and he makes another appearance on JVM in the PM.
(think that's why he had to hire two more pro-bono's--to delegate? He sure doesn't seem to be busy where he should be)

I bet before this trial is over the Bar Association will have more complaints on ole JB and hopefully they will have enough to finally pull his license, and a jail cell would be icing on the cake.

I was watching American Justice this morning which featured the trial of a woman accused of having her husband killed, I think. Anyhow, its not the charge that is important, it is that this woman, at her trial, stood up and asked the judge for a mistrial because of inaffective counsel. Her attorney stood beside her and listened to her tell the judge why "he" was inaffective. He went along with her and told the judge why he was a bad attorney for her. His last name was Amadar. He purposely went along with his client even though he didn't agree with her claim he was inaffective. He said he hated going along with her but did it for HER, his client, who was fighting for her life.

Now I remember another thread where we strongly debated this issue - as to whether a defense attorney would really do this for their client despite it making them look bad and risk their entire reputation. I posted that I have worked for a dp attorney who did just that. It does happen and I was surprised to see it on AJ today.

My point is......at the AJ trial, the Judge told them all they were like a Jerry Springer show and he hated Jerry Springer.......but he also told the defendant that she WAS GUARANTEED A FAIR TRIAL, NOT A PERFECT TRIAL. And he denied her request for a mistrial based on inaffective counsel.

IMO NO MISTRIAL FOR ICA............not for anything we've seen or heard from yet. I don't believe the SA would hold out something criminal against JB so that they could showboat at trial and arrest him. THAT kinda stunt could result in a mistrial for ICA because it would prejudice the jury - i.e.,if her atty is a crook, then it makes her look bad too......KWIM? If something truly illegal has occurred I would think that the SA has a duty to move on it before trial for this exact reason. If they don't have enough to do something before the trial, I hope they wait until the trial is over and have it be a separate issue that does not interfere with ICA's day in court - or Caylee's justice.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-23/news/os-rifqa-stemberger-complaint-20100923_1_rifqa-bary-case-orlando-attorney-john-stemberger-muslim-attorney

Rifqa's former lawyer in trouble with the Florida Bar
The Bar on Thursday officially notified his attorney that, following an investigation, a grievance committee has concluded that Stemberger is guilty of professional misconduct and should be prosecuted at a trial-like proceeding that could lead to sanctions.


http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/09/07/omar-tarazi-lawsuit-rifqa-bary.html

Bary-case lawyer files $10M defamation lawsuit
Ohio lawyer Omar Tarazi is suing a Florida attorney and a blogger he says defamed him in connection with the Rifqa Bary case.

sleutherontheside said:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-23/news/os-rifqa-stemberger-complaint-20100923_1_rifqa-bary-case-orlando-attorney-john-stemberger-muslim-attorney

Rifqa's former lawyer in trouble with the Florida Bar
The Bar on Thursday officially notified his attorney that, following an investigation, a grievance committee has concluded that Stemberger is guilty of professional misconduct and should be prosecuted at a trial-like proceeding that could lead to sanctions.


http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/09/07/omar-tarazi-lawsuit-rifqa-bary.html

Bary-case lawyer files $10M defamation lawsuit
Ohio lawyer Omar Tarazi is suing a Florida attorney and a blogger he says defamed him in connection with the Rifqa Bary case.

Click to expand...

OH I WISH that Kronk, or Grund or someone JJ would sue JB... OMG that would be GREAT

butterfly1978 said:

OH I WISH that Kronk, or Grund or someone JJ would sue JB... OMG that would be GREAT

Click to expand...

ITA! Wouldn't that be great? Look at what he has done to RK. He went on television, doing interviews, and stated that RK SHOULD have been a suspect! That he was as suspicious as KC herself! He then aired interviews with his ex-wife where she made horrid allegations and states that she thinks RK was the killer! No evidense pointing to him, just what these people think and feel! If I were RK, I'd have JM waiting in the wings to go after JB with both barrels as soon as KC is convicted! And just for chits and giggles, I'd go after LP as well for all of the cockamamie theories and daisy chains he has gone on national tv and smeared RK with!

butterfly1978 said:

OH I WISH that Kronk, or Grund or someone JJ would sue JB... OMG that would be GREAT

Click to expand...

RoyK for sure...with JG, I think CA has been the one to run her mouth the most about him-Once the state put out their dossier on Jesse, the defense did not go after him.
If the defense airs JJ's domestic relations laundry (divorce/custody), I would definately go after them then, if I were JJ-May be fruitless, but make 'em squirm for a while.
And I know just the lawyer that could take their cases-starts with JOHN, ends with MORGAN.

chefmom said:

ITA! Wouldn't that be great? Look at what he has done to RK. He went on television, doing interviews, and stated that RK SHOULD have been a suspect! That he was as suspicious as KC herself! He then aired interviews with his ex-wife where she made horrid allegations and states that she thinks RK was the killer! No evidense pointing to him, just what these people think and feel! If I were RK, I'd have JM waiting in the wings to go after JB with both barrels as soon as KC is convicted! And just for chits and giggles, I'd go after LP as well for all of the cockamamie theories and daisy chains he has gone on national tv and smeared RK with!

Click to expand...

but really, wasn't it just normal for the defense to say they thought a person should be/should have been investigated as a person of interest under the circumstances, i.e. (a) this person found the body when no one else could, no one could find it there even after he reported it (b) + the weird story about leaving the site and forgetting about the skull because of the snake and because he had other things on his mind, and (c) the allegations by the exwife about duct-taping etc.
Can the defense not say that? I mean they didn't make an accusation, or invent these circumstances, the circumstances were just there. I don't actually know what they can legally say about people they think should be looked into etc, I don't know how that works. They do represent the interests of the mother of the child and do speak for her, did they have a responsibility to say this?

LP getting on national TV and discussing those daisy chain theories about people, that seemed a little stronger. I was surprised he did that.

seagull65 said:

but really, wasn't it just normal for the defense to say they thought a person should be/should have been investigated as a person of interest under the circumstances, i.e. (a) this person found the body when no one else could, no one could find it there even after he reported it (b) + the weird story about leaving the site and forgetting about the skull because of the snake and because he had other things on his mind, and (c) the allegations by the exwife about duct-taping etc.
Can the defense not say that? I mean they didn't make an accusation, or invent these circumstances, the circumstances were just there. I don't actually know what they can legally say about people they think should be looked into etc, I don't know how that works. They do represent the interests of the mother of the child and do speak for her, did they have a responsibility to say this?

LP getting on national TV and discussing those daisy chain theories about people, that seemed a little stronger. I was surprised he did that.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that points to anyone but Casey and to a lesser extent, possibly members of the Anthony family. THere is no reason to pursue anything about Kronk. Probably any circumstances where a person finds a dead body will have some weird coincidences - otherwise people would have found it sooner. It is shameful to pursue Kronk imo. First it was Zanny, then the Grunds, then Kronk, and it will probably be GA sooner or later.

seagull65 said:

but really, wasn't it just normal for the defense to say they thought a person should be/should have been investigated as a person of interest under the circumstances, i.e. (a) this person found the body when no one else could, no one could find it there even after he reported it (b) + the weird story about leaving the site and forgetting about the skull because of the snake and because he had other things on his mind, and (c) the allegations by the exwife about duct-taping etc.
Can the defense not say that? I mean they didn't make an accusation, or invent these circumstances, the circumstances were just there. I don't actually know what they can legally say about people they think should be looked into etc, I don't know how that works. They do represent the interests of the mother of the child and do speak for her, did they have a responsibility to say this?

LP getting on national TV and discussing those daisy chain theories about people, that seemed a little stronger. I was surprised he did that.

Click to expand...

yes they have a right to be suspicious, but LE cleared him. The defense went digging into this mans past a tried to make him look like suspect. The allegations that kronk's ex wife made had no basis. He was never charged or convicted of anything. People can not just go around and make false claims like that with no basis for it.

seagull65 said:

but really, wasn't it just normal for the defense to say they thought a person should be/should have been investigated as a person of interest under the circumstances, i.e. (a) this person found the body when no one else could, no one could find it there even after he reported it (b) + the weird story about leaving the site and forgetting about the skull because of the snake and because he had other things on his mind, and (c) the allegations by the exwife about duct-taping etc.
Can the defense not say that? I mean they didn't make an accusation, or invent these circumstances, the circumstances were just there. I don't actually know what they can legally say about people they think should be looked into etc, I don't know how that works. They do represent the interests of the mother of the child and do speak for her, did they have a responsibility to say this?

LP getting on national TV and discussing those daisy chain theories about people, that seemed a little stronger. I was surprised he did that.

Click to expand...

Hummmmm. (RBBM) This makes me wonder about how we first discovered that the defense was trying to smear RK? Was it from something the defense said to the press, through a sunshine doc release, or from good ol' LP? I honestly don't remember but now that we know LP's interests are with JB and team I wouldn't be shocked that they had used him for this purpose.

Could it be that they were using LP from the get-go (much earlier than we ever suspected) to release some of their dirty smoke and mirror bombs? Specifically, I'm suspicious of the origin of the "daisy chain" theory. Could JB have asked LP to start that rumor?

I donno. The evil in so many of these characters is beyond my understanding. cough, cough ~ the smoke is really getting to me. . .